alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

Calendar No. 66 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1034 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 East Court Street 

in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Charles Clark United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 21, 2015 

Mr. WICKER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

MAY 4, 2015 

Reported by Mr. INHOFE, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 501 

East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, as the 

‘‘Charles Clark United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CHARLES CLARK UNITED STATES COURT4 HOUSE. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States courthouse 

6 located at 501 East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1034 RS

1 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Charles Clark 

2 United States Courthouse’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the United States courthouse referred to in sub6 section (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

7 ‘‘Charles Clark United States Courthouse’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 66 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1034 

A BILL 

To designate the United States courthouse located 

house’’. as the ‘‘Charles Clark United States Courtat 501 East Court Street in Jackson, Mississippi, 

MAY 4, 2015 

Reported without amendment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States.

# ACTION:

Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules; notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules will hold a meeting in a hybrid format with remote attendance options on April 10, 2024 in Denver, CO. The meeting is open to the public for observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:                         *https://www.uscourts.gov/​rules-policies/​records-and-archives-rules-committees/​agenda-books*.                    

# DATES:

April 10, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        H. Thomas Byron III, Esq., Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,                         *RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov*.                    

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

Dated: December 14, 2023.

Shelly L. Cox,

Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.

[FR Doc. 2023-27862 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
Exhibit 21


     The following are the registrant's subsidiaries, other than subsidiaries
that, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not
constitute a significant subsidiary:


                                                              Jurisdiction
                                                                   of
Name of Subsidiary                                            Incorporation

Chris-Craft Television, Inc.                                    Delaware
         KCOP Television, Inc.                                  California
         Oregon Television, Inc.                                Oregon
Pinelands, Inc.                                                 Delaware
United Television, Inc.                                         Delaware
         UTV of San Francisco, Inc.                             California
         UTV of San Antonio, Inc.                               Texas
         UTV of Baltimore, Inc.                                 Delaware
         UTV of Orlando, Inc.                                   Delaware
         United Television Sales, Inc.                          Delaware
#### State v. Haynes

17157

11/02/94

Affirmed
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Todd E. Wille, Chief Executive Officer of the
Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

(2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.



|Dated: November
      21, 2008 | /s/ TODD E. WILLE            
|------------------------------ | -----------------------------
|                               | Todd E.
      Wille          
|                               | Chief Executive
      Officer

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.1


          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 106 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Each of, Matthew H. O'Toole, Chief Executive Officer, and, Robert
A. Desrosiers, Chief Financial Officer, of The Hockey Company, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

     (1) The Company's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June
30, 2002 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                      * * *


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


/s/ Matthew H. O'Toole                       /s/ Robert A. Desrosiers
----------------------------------           ----------------------------------
Matthew H. O'Toole                           Robert A. Desrosiers

Date: 14 August, 2002                        Date: 14 August, 2002
# C_2020414EN.01000801.xml

| 30.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Crown Van Gelder BV v Autoriteit Consument en Markt

(Case C-360/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market for electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 37 - Duties and powers of the regulatory authority - Out-of-court dispute settlement - Concept of ‘party having a complaint’ - Complaint submitted by a final customer against the operator of a transmission system to which that customer’s installation is not directly connected - Failure on the grid - No contractual relationship between that customer and the operator of that grid - Admissibility of the complaint)

(2020/C 414/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Crown Van Gelder BV

Defendant: Autoriteit Consument en Markt

Other party: TenneT TSO BV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 37(11) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC must be interpreted as meaning that the regulatory authority may not dismiss a complaint submitted by a final customer against the operator of a transmission system, following a power failure in that system, on the ground that that final customer’s installation is connected not to that transmission system directly, but only to a distribution system fed by it.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---
19520

#### State v. Sasaki

Vacated
August 2019

White Striped Fruit Fly, Bactrocera albistrigata, Host List

The berries, fruit, nuts and vegetables of the listed plant species are now considered host articles 

for B. albistrigata. Unless proven otherwise, all cultivars, varieties, and hybrids of the plant 

species listed herein are considered suitable hosts of B. albistrigata. 

Scientific Name Common Name

Aglaia argentea Blume N/A

Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam. Jackfruit

Averrhoa carambola L. Carambola, starfruit

Calophyllum inophyllum L.

Alexandrian-laurel, Indianlaurel

Gmelina elliptica Sm. Badhara-bush

Guettarda speciosa L. Sea randa, zebrawood

Mangifera indica L. Mango

Mimusops elengi L. Medlar, Spanish-cherry

Ochrosia oppositifolia (Lam.) K. Schum. Mangga laut

Polyalthia longifolia (Sonn.) Thwaites Cemetery-tree, mast-tree

Psidium guajava L. Guava

Scolopia spinosa Warb. N/A

Syzygium aqueum (Burm. F.) Alston Watery rose-apple, water-apple

Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr. & L. M. Perry Clove

Syzygium malaccense (L.) Merr. & L. M. Perry Malay-apple, mountain-apple

Syzygium samarangense (Blume) Merr. & L. M. 

Perry

Java-apple, Semarang roseapple, wax apple

Terminalia catappa L. Tropical almond

Terminalia procera Roxb. White bombway
#### State v. Keanini

17709

4/18/95

Affirmed
# C_2020423EN.01000901.xml

| 7.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 October 2020 — Close SA, Cegelec SA v European Parliament

(Case C-447/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Public works contracts of the European Union - Tender procedure - Extension and refurbishment work on the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Scope of the contracting authority’s obligation to inform the tenderer who has not been awarded the contract - Statement of reasons)

(2020/C 423/12)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Close SA, Cegelec SA (represented by J.-L. Teheux and J.-M. Rikkers, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by E. Paladini and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Close SA and Cegelec SA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Close SA and Cegelec SA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---
18224

#### Hawai'i State Asbestos Cases, In re

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND THE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                              55
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      277
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        242
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   640
<PP&E>                                             252
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              514
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (330)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,404
<SALES>                                            642
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   642
<CGS>                                              460
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   143
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  26
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     15
<INCOME-TAX>                                         7
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  9
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         9
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.19


</TABLE>
February 2024

There were 8 surveillance inspections conducted at 8 different sites for a total of 40

fish sampled this month. Samples are targeted to moribund and fresh mortalities. The 

water temperatures continued to decrease in response to colder air temperatures. 

Routine harvest continued. All sites with fish in the water remained Category 1 and 

were scheduled for monthly sampling.

Date Number of 

Samples

Confirmed Positive Cages Cumulative 

Program Samples

March 2023 35 0 25611

April 2023 59 0 25670

May 2023 60 0 25730

June 2023 55 1 25785

July 2023 60 0 25845

August 2023 50 0 25895

September 2023 45 0 25940

October 2023 45 0 25985

November 2023 45 0 26030

December 2023 45 0 26075

January 2024 45 0 26120

February 2024 40 0 26160
# C_2022084EN.01000601.xml

| 21.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — Aeris Invest Sàrl v Single Resolution Board (SRB)

(Case C-874/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Resolution procedure applicable where an entity is failing or is likely to fail - Adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español SA - Sale of business tool - Write-down and conversion of capital instruments - Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Article 20 - Concept of ‘definitive valuation’ - Consequences - Refusal or failure to proceed with an ex post definitive valuation - Remedies - Action for annulment)

(2022/C 84/06)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (represented: initially by R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, abogados, and subsequently by R. Vallina Hoset, E. Galán Burgos and M. Varela Suárez, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: J. King, L. Pogarcic Mataija and E. Muratori, acting as Agents, F. Louis and G. Barthet, avocats, and H. G. Kamann and L. Hesse, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aeris Invest Sàrl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---
#### Appeal by BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA from Order of the Board of Equalization of Tulsa County, Oklahoma.

No. 37500.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Oct. 29, 1957.

*264J. Howard Edmondson, County Atty. of Tulsa County, Donald D. Cameron, Chief Civil Asst., Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

C. N. Haskell, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, Justice.

This is an appeal on the original record by the Tulsa County Assessor from a judgment of the District Court of Tulsa County, fixing the valuation, for ad valorem tax purposes for the years 1953 to 1955 inclusive, of a certain lot and building thereon in the City of Tulsa, known as the Philtower Building which was owned and operated by the Boy Scouts of America. The protest and subsequent proceedings as. to assessment for each of said years constituted a separate matter on appeal but all of them were consolidated in the District Court over objection of the assessor. The parties will be referred to as “assessor” and “protestant.”

The value placed upon the lot upon which the building stood was fixed for taxation purposes at $180,000 for each of said years and no question is here raised with regard to it. This litigation is concerned with the assessed valuation of the building which was fixed by the assessor at $841,030 for each of said years. The judgment of the trial court from which this appeal was taken fixed said value at $660,000.

Except for minor differences in the evidence and that the power of the trial court to consolidate the several cases, this case is identical, as to issues and questions of law, to Appeal of National Bank of Commerce of Tulsa, Okl. 316 P.2d 175. Our opinion in that case, promulgated on the 17th day of September, 1957, is dispositive of the instant case. Therefore, said opinion and syllabus therein, except for paragraph No. 3, approved and adopted as the syllabus and opinion herein, and *265the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

CORN, V. C. J., and HALLEY, WILLIAMS, JACKSON and CARLILE, JJ., concur.

BLACKBIRD, J., concurs by reason of stare decisis.

WELCH, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., dissent.
19703

#### John Doe (b. 11/30/92), In Interest of

Affirmed
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901



## JUL 2 

## 7 2012

Kelly J. Barr, Esq. SeniorDirector, Salt River Project P.O. Box 52025 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2025 Dear Ms Barr: 

### I 

### am responding to your letter dated June 26,2012 regarding the proposed emission limit for nitrogen oxides (NOx)at the Coronado Generating StationUnit 2. 

### In our proposed rule published in the Federal Registeron July 20,2012, we proposed an emissions limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2, but stated that we would pursue 

### furtherinformation regarding specific changes required to meet a lower emissions limit. We arerequesting such information from Salt River Project (SRP)by August 17, 2012. EPA proposed an emission limit forNOxof0.080 lb/MMBtu at Coronado Unit 2 based on SRP's claim that, in order to meet a lower limit of0.050 lb/MMBtu, it would need to restart work already underway on the design and constructionofthe selective catalyticreduction (SCR) retrofit. In SRP's June 26th letter, SRP claimed that this lower limit could cause excessive cost and likely failure to meet the deadline in the consent decreebetween the U.S. government and SRP. Before we can incorporate these considerationsinto our final BART analysis for Coronado Unit 2, we need 

### further documentation regarding both the technical feasibility and the cost ofmeeting the lower limit. Specifically, we arerequestingdocumentation ofthe design changes to the SCR that would be needed to meet a limit of 0.050 lb/MMBtu for NOxat Unit 2. We are also requesting SRP's plan for managing the SCR catalyst layers to meet the consent decree limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu, and how that plan might change in order to meet a limit of 0.050 lb/MMBtu. Please include in your response the amount of spare space for catalyst layers, the expected frequencyof catalyst layer replacement, vendor recommendations and guarantees, and documentation of specific "sunk costs" expended by SRP to comply with the requirements of the consent decree. We will evaluate all information received and determine whether a limit of 0.050 IblMMBtu is technically feasibleand cost-effective. To allowthe public adequate time to evaluate and comment on this information, we arerequesting this information by August 17,2012. Your prompt response to this request would be appreciated.Please feel fiee to contactme at 415-972-3133, or Colleen McKaughan at 520-498-0118, ifyou have any questions about our request. Sincerely,

,gfleborah 

# 4 ordan 

# '

Air Division Director

cc: Kara Montalvo, 

### SRP
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Edd Helms Group, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") for the year ended May 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, W. Edd
Helms, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company; Dean A.
Goodson, Chief Financial Officer; and L. Wade Helms, Executive Vice President
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

      (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the company.

Date: September 12, 2007       /s/  W. Edd Helms, Jr.
      ------------------       ----------------------
                               W. Edd Helms, Jr., President, Chief
                               Executive Officer

      September 12, 2007       /s/  Dean A. Goodson
      ------------------       --------------------
                               Dean A. Goodson, Chief Financial Officer

      September 12, 2007       /s/  L. Wade Helms
      ------------------       ------------------
                               L. Wade Helms, Executive Vice President